|
|
Posted by Jay G. on 06/19/06 01:46
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:45:11 -0400, Derek Janssen wrote:
>>
>> The players for both formats are capable of playing DVDs, and can upconvert
>> them to 720 and 1080. However, I'm not sure what the "flaw/difference" is.
>
> The difference is, there's nothing we're "begging" to get that's not
> already on DVD.
To be fair, with very few exceptions, there were very few older releases
that hadn't been released on VHS or LD at some point. Had DVD not come
along, new releases and re-releases would've continued to appear on VHS and
LD. And failing that, studios would've been restoring and retransfering
titles for HDTV. That's kinda the dirty secret of DVD: it is mainly
supplementing what studios would've had to have done for HDTV in any case.
> You could buy the Matrix, or Disney movie, or what have you, in a form
> it had never existed before,
Both Blu-Ray and HD DVD count as a "form it had never existed before."
> and even "Bonus Features" seemed like a new invention--
This was mainly a benefit of DVD combining the LD and VHS market. VHS
users got the advanced quality on features of LD, and LD users got the
prices of VHS.
> But Another Kind of DVD, Only Better Than the Old One, has sort of a
> tough act to follow.
No argument there. HD discs are not going to replace DVD as the dominant
video format any time soon. It's unlikely that HD discs will usurp DVD at
the rate that DVD usurped VHS. However, they are superior formats, and at
least one is eventually going to prevail, provided that people are still
buying videos on disc at that point.
> (Eg., Warner *could* have done their Matrix stunt and only sold
> "Superman Returns" in hi-def format....But they didn't.
What the hell are you talking about? Superman Returns isn't even out in
theaters yet. And the Matrix was available on VHS.
-Jay
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|